FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #73: “Politics is about overspending and vote-buying while getting some poor dumb bastard to pay for it.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 5th, 2011

Washington is Show Business for the Ugly

The founding of America heralded the end of aristocratic rule.  And this is a problem.  For aristocrats.  Those who feel they’re better than everyone else.  Especially those who aspire greatness, and wealth, through political office.  Such as Liberal Democrats.  And RINO Republicans.  Those who like to mingle in the world of the beautiful people.  Rubbing shoulders with the fabulously rich.  And A-List celebrities.  Attending the best parties.  Meeting the best people.  Eating the best food.  Drinking the best booze.  It’s a beautiful life.  The only problem is the price of admission.  You have to be rich and/or talented to get in.  And rich and talented aspiring politicians aren’t.

At least, not at first.  But politics offers them that opportunity.  Rush Limbaugh said Washington is show business for the ugly.  There may be a lot of truth in that.  You see, the beautiful people are, well, beautiful.  That’s their ticket to celebrity and fame.  And access to that beautiful life.  From movie stars being discovered sitting at a drug store counter to talentless reality stars.  Being attractive can be a shortcut to fame.  Beautiful people go the front of the line at the best clubs.  And often get a free pass in.  Because people want to be around beautiful people.  Even if they’re unknown.  That’s the power of being beautiful.  Which can be a problem for the beautifully challenged.

Of course, having talent is a way around not being beautiful.  Those nerds in high school went on to be millionaires.  Even billionaires.  Those geeky guys that never had a date in high school now have the most beautiful women chasing them.  For their money, of course.  But they are still chasing them.  And they learned something.  It’s not important to be beautiful.  As long as you’re rich.  Because it turns out that money can buy a lot of happiness.  Sure it’s the shallow and superficial kind.  But you’ll be at the best parties.  Rubbing shoulders with the other fabulously rich.  And A-list celebrities.  That’s a pretty sweet life.  And one that many covet.  But what do you do if you’re neither beautiful nor talented?  You, of course, go into politics.

You have to be a Real Good Liar

Those with no talent or ability can try to trade in on their appearance.  If they’re considered too ‘ugly’ to get by on their looks alone then they can enter a career of lying.  Politics.  Where you say you care about the little people and promise to give them things if only they will vote for them.  You do anything to get into office.  Because once you do you’re set for life.  Salary and benefits for Congress people are better than anything you’ll get working in the private sector.  And the retirement package is insane.  You live the rest of your life with a large percentage of your Congressional salary.  And you keep a lot of the perks from your Congressional days.  In other words, being elected to office is a ticket into a new aristocracy.  Just like in days of old.  And once you’re in people will treat you as if you are better than everyone else.

It’s a fairytale life.  And a lot of people want it.  People that you have to beat in some election.  Often without the help of any voter election fraud if you’re just starting your political career.  So you have to be a real good liar.  You have to suspend all reason and logic.  And promise, promise, promise.  Even with astronomically high deficits you promise to give people more if they vote for you.  Because you have a plan.  You’re going to shift the tax burden to those who can afford it.  Go after the rich who don’t pay their fair share.  And cut corporate welfare.  With these savings you will be able to spend more on the poor and disadvantaged.  It’s a powerful sales pitch.  And it works well if they are not well educated (thank you public education) and don’t understand taxes and their impact on the job-creating economy.  Also, the more poor and disadvantaged they are the better.  Because the rich and middle class aren’t going to vote higher taxes on themselves.  Only the poor and disadvantaged (who are not well educated on taxes and their impact on the job-creating economy) will continuously vote to raise taxes on those who have more than they do.  Classic class warfare.  So it’s important that your programs fail.  Because you don’t want to help these people.  Not if you’re relying on them to help you sustain your better life.

Of course having a large percentage of the population dependent on your government policies and programs isn’t enough.  It will make the elections easier but it isn’t going to pay the bills.  These people are, after all, a burden.  They consume a lot of the tax base.  But most don’t pay any taxes.  Sure, you can live a comfortable life on a Congressional salary.  But there’s so much more to be had out there with the power to write laws and regulations.  When you can decide winners and losers in the economy you wield considerable influence.  And that influence is worth something.  Especially to crony capitalists.  Who look to profit not by competing in the free market.  But by having friends in high places.  Friends who will reward them well in exchange for a little cash and perks thrown their way.  And by a little I mean a lot.  Of course the good politician makes sure these crony capitalists are only profitable with their help.  Because the less they need their special favors the less of their cash and perks find their way to Washington.

Higher Tax Rates ultimately Reduce the Amount of tax Dollars Collected

Politics is nothing more than a ballet of leverage.  Who has pull.  Who can use it best.  And who is willing to screw the little guy.  You use the poor and disadvantaged to win elections.  But you do everything within your power to keep them poor and disadvantaged so they can keep helping you win elections (we’ve been fighting a war to end poverty since LBJ‘s Great Society of the 1960s and we haven’t won it yet which should tell you something).  You use crony capitalism to enhance your wealth and wellbeing.  But you make sure this corporate welfare only serves one person.  You.  So you don’t necessarily want to see your crony capitalists doing well in the free market.  Far from it.  For if they can do well without your help they’re not going to stay your bitch.

So, to succeed in politics you need to do a couple of things.  You need to redistribute wealth from those who create it to those who don’t.  And form mutually exclusive relationships with crony capitalists.  We call it tax and spend.  And legislation.  They use the progressive income tax system to spread the wealth.  And write legislation that rewards their friends while punishing the enemies of their friends.  Taxes for revenue.  And legislation for power and wealth. 

But the revenue is never enough (as the deficits show).  Despite the progressive income tax system.  Where, in the name of fairness, the richer you are the more taxes you pay.  And the poorer you are the fewer taxes you pay.  But keeping as many people as poor as possible has its drawbacks.  The more poor there are the fewer there are paying taxes.  Which requires raising taxes on the non-poor.  The rich.  And the middle class.  Which has a real big side affect.  After a point, higher taxes reduce economic activity.  It’s the law of diminishing returns.  The higher tax rates ultimately reduce the amount of tax dollars collected.  So they consider other sources of revenue besides the income tax.  Money that is ‘outside’ of the economy.  Money that’s ‘parked’.  Untouched by income and excise taxes.  Such as estates of the dead.  And the wealth of the living.  There is an estate tax.  But no wealth tax.  Yet.  And, oh, do they want one.  Like in some European countries.  Because the rich don’t work.  They invest.  They don’t live on income.  They live on ‘investment’ income.  Capital gains.  Which is taxed at a lower capital gains rate.  Not the confiscatory rate of the progressive tax system.  Worse, as the government sees it, they only pay taxes on their capital gains.  Not their capital.  Their wealth.  And that’s a lot of money parked outside the economy that they want a piece of.

Something ‘outside’ the Economy to Tax

But a wealth tax has its problems, too.  You can move wealth.  If you tax wealth the wealthy will just invest their wealth elsewhere.  Like rich Europeans have done.  No.  They need something better.  Something the rich can’t escape.  And, ideally, finding something ‘outside’ the economy to tax.  Something like the Las Vegas model.  The casinos in Vegas bring a lot of money into the city.  The casinos are very profitable.  And Las Vegas and Nevada profit well, too (before the subprime mortgage crisis, at least).  Many other cities have tried to cash in on these fat profits but have failed to match the success of Vegas.  Caesars Windsor is doing well because it is in a smaller city across the border from a larger metropolitan area.  A metropolitan area with a lot of people.  And if just a fraction of them crossed the border it would swell the Windsor economy.  And like Vegas, Windsor does have a little vice to offer.  A bit of the naughty that you can’t get in that metro area.  For the good people of Metro Detroit have a higher legal drinking age.  They don’t have gentlemen’s clubs with nude dancers that serve alcohol.  And prostitution is illegal.  But all of these things (to a certain extent) are available in Windsor.  Just across the border.  Where, like Vegas, what happens in Windsor stays in Windsor.  Plus Windsor has an active nightlife.  Safe streets.  And a touch of an international flair.  The money poured into Windsor.  When Detroit finally added three casinos to get a little piece of that action that’s what they got.  A little piece.  The casinos were money makers.  But Detroit did not enjoy the boom that Windsor did.  Why?

Windsor did well for the same reason Vegas did well.  They’re both destination cities.  People travel to them.  They’ll fly there for a vacation.  Or cross an international border for a night out.  These are the people spending and losing their money in these casinos.  Not the good people of Windsor.  Or the good people of Las Vegas.  It’s outside money coming into the local economy.  Which is a net add.  The problem Detroit has is that it’s not a destination city.  It’s cold in the winter.  It’s suffered blight and decline.  And still has a reputation as being unsafe.  People aren’t going there.  It’s just the people already there that are gambling away their money.  These people are just going out to dinner less.  Going out to fewer movies.  Going out to fewer clubs.  Etc.  The problem in Detroit is that there is no new money coming into the economy.  All that casino money was just local money people were spending someplace else in the local economy.

Despite what they say, politicians know high taxes don’t stimulate economic growth.  It just transfers money from one person to another to spend.  There’s no net gain.  Like in Detroit with their casinos.  They would love a wealth tax.  But the rich could easily avoid it by moving their wealth.  But there is something that even they can’t avoid.  Taxing energy.  Rather, the emissions created by energy.  In the name of combating global warming.  Cap and trade.  Emissions trading.  Making people buy ‘permits’ for their emissions.  That can be traded.  Creating a permit exchange similar to a stock exchange.  Governments forcing private entities to buy ‘shares’ of pollution.  Brilliant.  Because you can’t escape the use of energy.  It is a part of our very existence.  So you can’t escape it.  And the Europeans have taken it to the Las Vegas model.  The European Union (EU) will force international airlines flying into EU airspace to pay in essence an extralegal tax.  Which is the greatest kind of tax a government can use.  A tax whose full benefits will go to their constituents.  But a not a dime of which their constituents will pay.  If you put this to a referendum, the people will pass it.  Because people will have everything to gain.  And nothing to lose.  Other than the trade war such an extralegal tax would most likely provoke.  And the accompanying economic crash and withering recession.

In the mean time, though, the ruling elite, the new aristocracy, will be able to maintain their privileged lives.  Mingling with the beautiful people.  The fabulously rich.  And A-List celebrities.  Which is really all they care about anyway.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rich Liberals Champion the Poor to Maintain their Privileged Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 2nd, 2011

Per-Vote-Subsidy replaces Corporate and Union Money

Canada has a spoils system when it comes to public financing of political campaigns.  The big pile of public money ‘donated’ by the Canadian taxpayer is divided between the parties by vote.  The more votes a party gets, the more tax subsidies that party gets.  The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, wants to do away with these subsidies (see Harper vows to scrap per-vote subsidies by CTV.ca News Staff posted 4/1/2011 on CTV.ca).

Currently, political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy, but Harper has long opposed the system, which was brought in by the Liberals when corporate and union donations were banned.

He said Friday that political parties already enjoy “enormous tax advantages” and taxpayers should not have to support parties they don’t support with their votes. Harper added that the subsidy only helps to ease the way for frequent elections.

Interesting.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not allow corporations or unions donate to political parties.  And when that ban went into place, the liberals brought in the per-vote-subsidy.  It takes money to win political contests.  And when you shut down two big sources (corporations and unions), that money has to come from somewhere else.  So the liberals decided to get that money from the taxpayer.  Fair, right?  I mean, without these subsidies, political power falls to the rich.  And that’s not fair, is it?

The Liberals are the Rich trying to Buy Political Power

When they banned corporate and union donations that left private donations.  From actual people.  So I guess we would have to see how that money flowed to see whether the per-vote-subsidy is fair and serves its purpose.  To keep the rich from wielding political power over the poor (see Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target by Patrick Brethour, Vancouver, posted 4/2/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Data compiled by the website Punditsguide.ca show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe…

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised… an average [per person] donation of $174.60…

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties.

Looking at the average per-person donation, it appears the liberal donors are richer than the conservative donors.  Kind of goes against everything the liberals tell us.  That conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich fat-cats who want to use the poor as footstools.  Either that or conservatives are just cheap bastards.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

And what do these numbers tell you?  Liberals rely on rich people for their political donations.  Conservatives rely on the little guy, the average working person who can barely afford to donate $200.  And the big corporations and the big unions pour money into liberal political parties.  In ‘soft ways‘ these days.  In Canada.  In the United States.  All around the world.  So much money that it was hard for the little guy to fight against it.  Leaving political power in the hands of the rich.  Much like the liberals say they want to prevent with the per-vote-subsidy.  But, in fact, that’s exactly what they want to do.  Leave political power in their rich hands.

You see, the crony capitalists and the snooty rich don’t like the little guy.  They like the good life that few can enjoy.  And sometimes they need special favors from government to continue that privileged life.  Which is why they donate to liberal parties.  But when they banned ‘hard money’ donations from corporations and unions, liberals had to scramble for other financing.  Because the majority of people don’t support their views.  So they need to ‘force’ donations through these per-vote-subsidies.  For it is the only way they can continue to rule against the will of the people.

The People who Supported Obamacare get Obamacare Waivers

It’s always about the money.  Whenever you’re confused about some political debate, just ask yourself this simple question.  Where’s the money?  Take health care, for example.  The goal of Obamacare was to provide everyone with high-quality yet affordable health care insurance.  Sort of like paying for a Big Mac and getting filet mignon.  Impossible, yes, but that’s what they told us. 

Big Business and the unions were all behind it.  Everyone (employers and unions) wants to dump their health care costs.  That’s why they were anxious for that public option.  Well, they didn’t get the public option.  Not yet.  First Obamacare has to put the private insurers out of business.  Once it does that then the government can step in as the insurer of last resort and, presto, they’ll get their national health care.  But leaves a costly problem for the here and now.

To ‘pass’ CBO, they had to include some onerous requirements.  The new law forced everyone to buy insurance.  The insurers had to cover preexisting conditions.  And they forbade insurance companies to recover their full overhead expenses.  Suddenly affordable insurance was going to become unaffordable.  Or people were simply going to lose their insurance because they couldn’t afford the premiums that were necessary to comply with the requirements of Obamacare.  So many of those who supported this legislation want no part of it.  For themselves, that is.  It’s okay for us.  But not for them.  So they’re asking that the law does not apply to them.  Only us (see List of health reform waivers keeps growing by Jason Millman posted 4/2/2011 on The Hill).

The number of waivers the Obama administration has awarded for a provision of the year-old healthcare reform law grew by 128 in March.

With the new waivers, that means 1,168 businesses, insurers, unions and other organizations have received one-year exemptions from a healthcare reform provision requiring at least $750,000 in annual benefits.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  Apparently another 128 insurance plans learned what was in it this past March.  And they want out.  Like the majority of Americans.  Which really begs the question why Obamacare?  It isn’t popular.  They had to pass it quickly before anyone could read the bill.  None of the unions want it.  So why have it?  Because liberals want it.  And why do politicians want anything?  Follow the money.

The Free Market provides High Quality and Low Prices

Hillary Clinton tried to socialize our health care.  Now Obamacare is a short step from doing just that.  Because they said only government could step in and fix our health care system.  That the so-called free market had failed.  Really now?  Because that’s the one thing that has been missing from our health care system.  Market forces.  Doctors providing medical services for a fee that their patients actually pay for.  Not a third party insurance bureaucrat.  But the actual patient.  Until now, that is.  And that free market?  It works.  It’s providing a fully funded quality system that people of average means can afford (see High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, posted 4/2/2011 on the Sun Journal).

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I’ll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you’ll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul.

The spread of “concierge medicine,” where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

People actually paying to see a doctor?  Imagine that?  Just like in the old days.  Before there was a health care crisis.  The patients are happy.  The doctors are happy.  And making a very nice living.  You can’t get much more of a win-win situation, can you?  Who could find fault with this?

The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with access. It hired consultants to investigate.

I guess the government could.  Big Brother is everywhere.  And he is looking at this free market solution.  And Big Brother is not amused.  People paying for their own medical care?  That’s a problem for those in government.  A big problem.

Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of Obama’s overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.

John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine. “Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system,” he said.

MedPAC’s Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a physician and policy expert, said “the fact that excellent doctors are doing this suggests we’ve got a problem.”

You see, one-on-one concierge medicine is bad because it lets doctors work freely with patients.  The government would prefer something along the current lines.  You treat patients.  And then we’ll think about paying you.  And how much we’ll pay you.  Like in the Medicare program now.  That way you’re our bitch.  But if you work outside the system, you and your patients will be free.  And we don’t like that.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the Money for the Money Never Lies

Politics is always about the money.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Because it takes money to gain and maintain political power.  Whether you’re running a political campaign.  Or supporting a campaign with your union dues in exchange for political favors (such as legislation that limits competition so unions can maintain their high wage and benefit packages).

Liberals are a minority of the population.  Wherever you are.  The majority of people don’t belong to a union or work for the government.  This majority has jobs.  They take care of their family.  And want Big Brother to leave them alone.  Union dues from a small percentage of the population can greatly influence elections, though.  They can’t donate directly.  But that money finds its way to liberals.  Liberals in the U.S. desperately need this money.  In fact, union dues have become so important to the ruling liberal elite that they created an entire new class of union-paying people.  The public sector union class.  Who has but one purpose.  To launder tax dollars from taxpayers to the Democrat Party.

The 2010 mid-term elections shook up the political establishment.  Conservative governors are fighting back against this new political class.  And the liberal left is attacking these governors.  Even President Obama sent activists to Madison, Wisconsin, to protest against Governor Walker as they voted to make their public sector workers live more like the rest of the people in Wisconsin.  This is why Obamacare is so important to the left.  Health care is 17% of GDP.  That’s a lot of money.  That’s why the public option is so important.  Why nationalized health care is so important.  Because of this money.  Liberals want this money to pass through Washington.  Where they can easily skim a little off the top for their political needs.  And to live well.  Without actually having to work.  Like that majority that pays all those taxes.

Life’s greatest question can be easiest answered by following the money.  For the money never lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #45: “The bluest of cities in the bluest of states have the most activist governments, the deepest recessions and the most abject poverty.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 21st, 2010

Blue States Bleeding Red

We call it the Great Recession.  It started with the subprime mortgage crisis.  Then the dominoes started falling.  And unemployment rates started to climb.  So many people lost their jobs that it wasn’t only banks and auto companies staring into the abyss of bankruptcy.  Our city and states were, too.

But not all our cities and states.  Some were hanging in there during the Great Recession.  There was a pattern.  Sure, it was a rule with some exceptions, but a general rule all the same.  And if you looked at one of those red/blue electoral maps, you could see the states (and the cities) having the biggest financial troubles.  You just looked for the blue.

The blue states are the ‘Democrat’ states.  The red states are ‘Republican’.  And the states that are in the news with financial troubles tend to be the blue states.  The New England States.  The Mid-West states.  And the West Coast states.  The rate of business failures and high unemployment rates have hammered these states.  Taxable income plummeted.  Without the income to tax, tax revenue plummeted.  And these blue states are bleeding red.

Blue States and Unionized Public Sector Employees

These are the Big Government states.  Home for most of the nation’s liberal democrats.  Although liberal democrats make up only about 20% of the national population, most of them live in these states.  And when you pack a lot of this 20% into these small areas, their influence can reach a majority.  And they can control these cities and states.  And do.

These liberals are the guilty rich (anti-capitalist inheritors of great wealth).  Crony-capitalists (anti-capitalists who eschew the free market and bribe politicians in exchange for governmental favoritism).  Big Union (anti-capitalists who eschew the free market and seek legislation that favors them).  The celebrity rich (anti-capitalist movie stars, musicians, painters, artists, etc., who don’t live in the real world).  University professors (anti-capitalists who still have posters of Che Guevara up in their classrooms).  The mainstream media (anti-capitalists who want to shape opinion instead of practicing journalism).  And, of course, the poor and government-dependent.

And then you have public sector employees.  Unionized public sector employees.  And their ranks are growing.  They don’t work very hard.  But boy are they paid well.  And talk about fat benefits.  Pension plans that most can’t even imagine.  They have made themselves a privileged class.  And with their boss having the power to tax, that privileged class will be remaining privileged for a long time to come.  Unless a Great Recession comes along.

Much of Flyover Country not having any Budget Crises

What is flyover country?  It’s that are area of the country liberals fly over when traveling between the West Coast, the Big Union Mid-West, New England and, of course, Washington D.C.  It’s that area in between.  The red states.  You see, liberals fly over the red states because they don’t like them.  Or Republicans.

Because America is a center-right nation, and the liberals have concentrated in the blue states, that has left most of ‘fly over’ country conservative.  And what do conservatives NOT like?  Big Government.  So liberals don’t go where they’ve not welcomed.  For Big Government is the heart and soul of liberalism.

So the red states don’t have Big Government.  They don’t have masses of government-dependent people.  And they don’t have large public sectors.  Or public sector union employees.  Which means they don’t have huge Big Government budgets.  Or budget crises.

The Public Sector Out Paces the Private Sector in the Blue States

But the blue states do.  Their Big Cities are packed with government-dependent people.  And they have a huge public sector to cater to these people.  And a public sector union that pays this public sector very well.  They have pay and benefit packages that are to die for.

Of course, a public sector doesn’t make anything.  They have no goods or services that they can sell in the free market.  They have but one source of income.  Taxes.  And when times are good, taxes are good.  But when times are poor, so are taxes.

Part of the liberal democrat’s strategy to remain in power is to get as many people as possible dependent on government.  This helps make Democrat voters (people who vote Democrat because they are afraid of losing their government benefits).  And justifies their huge government budgets.  So they keep adding people to the public dole.  And keep growing their budgets.  It’s a foolproof plan.  As long as the private sector grows along with the public sector.  So the private sector can keep paying the taxes to support the public sector.  And the privileged class.

Big Government – The Road to Bankruptcy

But it doesn’t always work.  When businesses fail they don’t have any income.  So they can’t pay any income taxes.  And when a business fails people lose their jobs.  And their incomes.  So they don’t pay any income taxes either.  But it doesn’t end there.  Without any income, they can’t buy anything in the free market.  So other businesses see their sales decline.  And have to lay off employees.  And these laid-off people can’t buy anything in the free market.  So more businesses see their sales decline.  And they lay off people.  And on and on it goes.  Where does it stop?  Usually in a bad recession.  Or even a great one.

You add all of this up and what do you get?  Big cities with growing budgets (and growing pension obligations).  And shrinking tax revenue to pay for it.  Costs exceed revenues.  Ergo, bankruptcy.

And some of the states with the most generous public sector pay and benefits are California, Illinois and New York.   Some of the bluest of blue states.  And coincidentally, these are the states facing some of the biggest budget crises.  Actually, it’s no coincidence.  It’s the ultimate consequence of Big Government.  Bankruptcy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,